"From the 'Rescue of the Nation State' to the Emergence of European Spaces"
Ryosuke Amiya-Nakada (Meijigakuin University)
r.amiya-nakada@nifty.com

1.Introduction: a Wish List from a Polisci-European studies scholar to the Historical Research
The aim of this paper is to make some contribution to the discussion on the future direction of the historical research on the European integration processes. I myself is not a historian, a political scientist specialised in Comparative and European Politics, and not in a position to make an inherent suggestion or a project declaration for further research. What I intend to do here is, broadly, to link the contemporary European studies to the Historical studies, and concretely, to emphasise the transnational dimension of European integration[1].
This exercise is not for criticizing current historiography on Europe with all the social scientists' arrogance. Rather, following comments and proposals should be read as presenting my"wish list" to the Integration Historians.
Here, it may be better to make my research interest clear, for following arguments are
more or less coming from concerns and difficulties I have had during my own empirical research. Recently, I have been engaged in the research project on the European social policy,
with some historical or developmental perspective covering the entire post WWII period. Thismeans, first, that my concern is on the "soft" aspects of integration, most recently symbolisedby the Open Method of Coordination. Second, social policy is a policy area where "pure"political consideration does not suffice and economic and sociological factors should be included. Third, social policy is a cornerstone of the "postwar settlement" or the "postwar regimes", whose integration has involved many actors other than governmental and political.
In the following pages, I first make some conceptual consideration and propose myfirst, methodological, “wish”. Then, I propose a research wish list composed of three substantial items, namely, anatomy of transnationality, aligning policy history and institutional history,
and the relationship between the postwar regimes and European Integration in general.

2.Conceptual Issues: Integration, Construction or Convergence?
First of all, some conceptual issues should be cleared. One aspect is about the "scope"of research. Most works have been done with the focus on the ECSC-EEC-EC-EU development, namely the current EU institutions and their predecessors. Some others try to keep
-1-their perspective broader, and include other institutions like the Council of Europe, the OEEC(OECD) in the research. Endo (2008) puts what they call the "EU-NATO-CE" regime in thecentre of description, and tries to illuminate changing relationships and dynamics among
those institutions, which is generally successful. But this is not the issue I am raising here.
Rather, I would like to ask, which process, which effect we have been studying and weshould investigate. Our research object is usually called "European Integration" and its history. Endo (2008) also appreciates a French expression "construction de l'Europe", or construction of Europe. But do those keywords cover the processes what we are interested in,entirely and properly? Not necessarily, I suppose.
Here, my contention is based on a trend in the current European politics research. Oneof the main research agendas in the political science has been the so-called 'Europeanisation' research paradigm for these ten years (Featherstone and Radaelli 2003). This paradigm
seeks to find out what effect the European Integration project has brought about on the policy
and politics in each member states. After an initial excitement and a flood of papers and dissertations, many researchers in the field have found various methodological difficulties. The
immediate one is that the hypotheses do not work as expected. And it is also said that only to
explore the so-called "downloading" from Brussels is not enough and we should investigate
uploading at the same time. It is rather an obvious point for the Historical research and there
is no problem.
Further issues are, however, more troubling. When we talk about the effect ofEuropean Integration, we usually have a gross impact in our mind. But it is problematic methodologically. Those gross changes might have occurred without Integration, influenced by theother factors like globalisation. We should somehow measure the net effect of Integration(Verdier and Breen 2001). This issue may be easier for historians to tackle, for they are moreaccustomed to identify complex environments of the central actors and their perceptions,then clarify why and how a specific policy or action was made. Handling of complex issues in
concrete historical situation is one of the historians' comparative advantages, I believe.
But how about unintended consequences of an environmental change? More concretely, we have difficulty in the cases where clear approximation or harmonization of policy
is occurring, but there is no trace of imposition or even learning from and via Europe. Can
this be called Europeanisation or European Integration?
Take an example of pension reform. Since 1980s, many European countries have begun to remodel their old age pension system into the three layered one, composed of thecompulsory, the occupational and the private layers. This is so even in Germany, where traditional Bismarckian social insurance model has been firmly entrenched. Sweden, long famous
for its tax-funded public pension scheme, now introduced a private pension scheme. The EU-2-

has been also active in this field. It publishes reports and policy statements for a sustainablepension scheme and encourage learning from other countries. If we take these changes attheir face value, it is easy to say the Europeanisation or Integration is in process. But how
about Japan? It is also moving in the direction of the three-layered scheme, by the introduction of the common minimum pension layer, overcoming traditional occupational division.
Then, is Japan in a process of Europeanisation? Obviously, not. True, the Japanese government has learned the lessons of pension reform in Europe, but it is rather a rational responseto the environmental change. What is issue here is that approximation and harmonisation ispossible even without overarching institutional frameworks or explicit agreements, and how
to grasp and characterise it.
Therefore, some scholars have broadened their perspective and now engage themselves in the "convergence" research (Knill 2005; Holzinger, Jörgens and Knill 2007). The
keywords there are "transfer", "diffusion", "learning" et cetra, which are trying to describe horizontal, mutual effect among the nation states. The fact that there are various types of "convergence" and it may happen even without mutual influence is also discussed. Echoing this,Glootz (2005) distinguish three processes, namely coordination, harmonisation and convergence.
So, my first "wish" to the historians is to pay more attention to the horizontal dimension
among the Member States (or even beyond). Historiography on European Integration has
done much in regard to the European Institution building or the policy making processes toward the European Institutions at the member country level. But there are more about themaking of a "Europe". Therefore I put the words like "emergence" and "space" in the title ofthis paper. What I mean by "emergence" is to investigate not only intentional and purposive
rational processes but also approximation and harmonisation as a consequence of unintended actions and responses to the environment. By "space", I want to emphasise that not only
institutions but also shared norms, policy paradigms or perceptions could sometimes matter[2].
Interestingly, some historians are using the concept of "Europeanisation" but try to explore the field which overlaps my suggestion above. The "Europeanisation History Network"
is composed of historians mainly from Britain (majority in Oxford) and Germany, who declares;
By focusing on developments of transfer and exchange, emulation and delimitation, theconcept of (de)Europeanisation moves beyond national and comparative history. Building on existing notions of Europeanisation, it will advance historians’ ability to analyze
continuity and change, convergence and delimitation in modern Europe(http://www.europeanisation.org/).
Their research topics include "the Europeanisation of Economics and the Economics of-3-

Europeanisation", which deals with community of economists, "Europeanisation through Culture: 'European Music' in the Twentieth Century", or "Memory and (de)Europeanisation - theHolocaust as a European 'lieu de mémoire'". We may further add the recent surge of interestin "transnational history" to that current (Dülffer 2005; Hoffmann 2003; Ther 2003).
As is already clear from the research topics above, the "emergence" of a European
space is closely linked with "transfer" or "diffusion", which usually need a "carrier" of an idea
or a "channel" of transaction. Here, we are already entering my second topic.

3.Anatomy of transnationality
To analyse the horizontal dimension of Integration, one of the most obvious ways is toinvestigate the role of transnational actors. Theoretically, such transnational actors as industrial groups, trade unions and interest lobbyists has occupied a centerpiece since the work ofHaas (2004 [1958]), whose activity has been attracted attention of political scientists (Greenwood 2007; Amiya-Nakada 2004). Historians have also directed their attention to those actors as European trade unions (Pasture 2001; 2005; Rumpf 2001; Suzuki 2007. cf. also
Dølvik 1997) and transnational European party networks (Kaiser 2007; Mittag 2006). Although there are some inherent difficulties for such research, especially lacking systematic
holding of historical sources (in comparison with the research on governmental policies),
such research will no doubt be advanced in the near future.
Still, there are some lacunae in the research. First, even the supranational institutions,which have been a focus of scholarly interest, have not explored fully. Although several historical works are now illuminating several aspects of internal working the European institutions (Varsori 2006), we do not have a clear picture of each institution.
For example, in analysing the role of the DG bureaucrats in the social policy formulation, I try to find out career patterns of the bureaucrats, based on the Annuals and the Organigramms of the Commission (Amiya-Nakada 2008). Now it is clear who was where during
which period, but I do not have a measure against which my findings should be evaluated.
Even as for the nomination procedure or personnel decision concerning the director-general,
I could not find clear pattern. For example, Jean Degimbe, a veteran in the Commission recruited by the Roger Raynaud, served for sixteen years. But the next two Directors, served
only for five and six years, respectively, although It is highly possible that Degimbe is an exception. Concerning career background, Degimbe and the other two Directors are internal
promotion within the Commision, but the successor of Degimbe, very influential Alan
Larsson, had been Swedish Minister of Finance before coming to Brussels. The Next Direct-4-

or, Odile Quintin, had spent most years in the DG Employment before promotion, but the current Director, Nikolaus van der Pas, had no previous experience with the DG employment.
Further down the hierarchy, it is more than unclear who comes to Brussels when and why.
Some join the Commission early and advance internally, the others come sideways from theMember States ministries to relatively high-level posts of the Commission. In the latter cases,
was it a personal decision or was s/he sent to the Commission by their "home"governments?
As far as the Commissioners are concerned, there is a study analysing their composition and background (Döring 2007), but the overall pattern of recruitment in the Commission
is yet to be investigated. Historical research has appropriate approaches to this issue, biographical study which concentrates on a specific person and describe various circumstancesand dynamics influencing her/his life, or prosopography.
As for the ECJ Judges, Alter (2001) uses the personal ambition of (national) judges tobe sent to Luxembourg as a part of explanatory variables for specific judgements. The personnel decision on a Commissioner is sometimes reported in the national press, but that on
an ECJ Judge is hardly a news. But potential influence of a Judge may be greater than thatof a Commissioner, for there is no European Institution which can directly intervene in thespecific case. Now we know much about creative interpretations of the ECJ, which is sometimes issued against the will of the Council or the Commission. So, the composition of the
ECJ Judges is as important as the US Supreme Court Judges and deserves much attention.
This research topic, personnel policy of supranational Institutions, relates to my second
point of this section. "Socialisation" is a term frequently used in recent European studies, especially those ones standing on the constructivism and emphasising learning (Egeberg 1999;
Trondel, Marcusson and Veggeland 2005). These studies, explicitly or implicitly against intergovernmental explanation which take the governmental position fixed beforehand, investigate the perceptions of the supranational bureaucrats from various countries or the national
bureaucrats sent to Brussels as a member of the delegates.
If such "socialising" effect is negligible, we do not have to talk about "Brussels bureaucrats", for all there is in the Commission is just negotiation games played by the Member
States. To the contrary, If the socialising effect have an enduring impact, not only on the
supranational bureaucrats, but also on the national delegates, it has further implications. In
this case, the more the bureaucrats acquire experiences of work in Brussels, the further theirperceptions and preferences are "Europeanised". As a result, the "preference" of a given
Member State may be subject to change in the long run. This socializing effect is especially
important when we deal with transnational aspects of Integration or the so-called "soft modeof governance", represented by the OMC.
-5-

My third point in this section is an extension of this perspective. Hartmut Kaelble has
recently stressed the existence of "European public sphere," which has direct political implications for the "democratic deficit" debate. One uniqueness of his (and his students') research
project is to treat various transnational networks of bureaucrats and policy experts as "publicsphere" and trace them back into the beginning of the twentieth century (Kaelble, Kirsch andSchmidt-Gernig 2002; Kaelble 2002; 2004). Then, who is the member of the community in agiven period and a given policy area, and what is the relationship between those transnational networks and the building of the European Institutions? How the Institutions facilitates the
networking and community building?
Further, a more difficult question will be when and how such transnational publicsphere of experts exercises an influence on actual political decisions? At least from the political science perspective, there is little use just saying "there is such unique thing as transnational network" without identifying its independent effect on a specific decision or the generaldevelopment of Integration. Historical research can identify specific cases and periods where
those transnational "public sphere" did matter, I hope.
In sum, I have argued in this section that transnational actors and transnational relations of policy makers should be analysed more intensively. This is not only about studying
the history of the European Trade Union Confederation or the European People's Party, butalso about making clear the transnational effects of the supranational institutions and thetransnational connections of the national actors.

4.Aligning Institutional History and Policy History
As is already discernible in the discussion of the previous section, study of transnational relationship, especially that of bureaucrats and experts, has rather narrow focus on a specific policy area, although there are often broader background assumptions or theories behind. But the centre of the Integration Historiography has been always occupied by the storyof building the European Institutions and the related drama of intergovernmental negotiations.
Such an academic inclination is only natural and justifiable given the importance of theEuropean institutions themselves. In conducting the EU-politics analysis, however, lack ofhistorically grounded and primary-sources based solid history of respective policy domain isregrettable. Moreover, the lack of solid historical knowledge sometimes leads to very muchstereotyped, although not totally wrong, interpretations.
For example, in the usual description of the "European Social Model" discourse, the-6-1993 White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment is often cited as the originof the discourse. I do not deny its importance as an important benchmark for the policy debate thereafter. But, after I have checked all the presidency conclusions of the European
Council meetings and important social policy Communications since 1993, I found several
details to be added to this usual narrative. First, it is true that the word "Model" itself appeared for the first time in this White Paper. But, the word then disappeared from the policy
papers and the presidency conclusions and came back again after 1995. Second, policy instruments stressed in the papers are different from the current ones. In the mid-1990s,
among the principal instruments were work-sharing and shorter working-time. Current emphasis on external flexibility or flexicurity, which means easier hire and fire with support of income protection, is of more recent origin. Third, mid-1990s papers always stressed interdependence of the macro and the micro aspects.
But I'm not completely sure about my findings, for the history of the European social
policy is yet to be written. Geyer (2000) is often used for the description of the general development of European social policy, and more recent works like Johnson (2005) and Wendler(2005) are also valuable. But they are all written by the social science scholars. I only hopethat solid history of European social policy would be written, from which I can start further research. There may be other policy areas with long history and awaits exploration by the Integration historians.
Policy history is also well suited for historical research beyond intergovernmental negotiations. In a specific policy area and under a specific circumstance, the working of thetransnational networks of politicians and the "expert public sphere" would be illuminatedmore clearly, and policy convergence outside the European institutions could be included in
the investigations.
A further interesting issue is the relationship between the institutional and policy histories. Is there isomorphism working and have the institutional changes rather directly affected
the policy development? Or are they rather independent and does each policy domain develop autonomous dynamics unaffected by the political struggles over the Institutions? This issue has two important implications.
First, if the institutional and the policy level are independent, it is highly probable that the Member State governments do not or cannot co-ordinate their policies at the European
level. In this case, there is no such thing as the "European policy" of a Member State but abundle of sectoral policies made by each national Ministries and negotiated at the European
level. In other words, prominent issues like supranationalism versus inter-governmentalism,or the relative strength of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission might be just superficial. Real life of the people might be affected more by the comitology and other negoti-7-

ations with in the policy community. This question is not theoretical but empirical one, to beanswered with temporal and policy specification.
Second, one of the most famous quotes in the EU studies says more than thirty years
ago;"Several blind men approached an elephant and each touched the animal in an effort todiscover what the beast looked like. Each blind man, however, touched a different partof the large animal, and each concluded that the elephant had the appearance of thepart he had touched. [...] The total result was that no man arrived at a very accurate description of the elephant (Puchara 1972).
This "blind men" metaphor is repeatedly used to criticise the predicament of the Integration
studies.
What if there is actually no elephant, like the painting of the Emperor Rudolf II by Giuseppe Arcimboldo.? The "EU" might be just a construction, and only policies might be real.
This is a real possibility, at least seen from the current state of affairs, and theoretical engagement is already beginning. For example, John P. McCormick, scholar of normative political theory, characterise the EU as a Sektoralstaat or a state composed of sectors (McCormick 2007), and Philippe C. Schmitter devised a word Condominio in exploring the future
shape of the EU (Schmitter 1996). The latter refers to the situation in which each policy sector has different membership, and some states join most frameworks but others few.
Therefore, I ask Integration historians to try to align policy histories and institutional histories more closely, for issues with theoretical and immediate implications are embedded
there.

5.A Milwardian Perspective Lost?: Postwar Politico-Economic Settlement and Integration
My final point is rather broad one. The Integration historiography has advanced our understanding greatly, on the concrete political considerations of each national governments
and their interactions under specific circumstances. Endo (2008) has done a very good job inthis regard and lifted up high the level of historical narrative on the Integration processes inJapan.
But how about more broad relationship between internal and external dimension of the"rescued" European nation states? If what Endo calls the "Milwardian agenda" is just about
showing that the intention of the national governments were rescuing the nation state andEuropean integration has been advanced as a result of such self-preserving decisions, it issafe to say that the work is well done in Endo (2008). But it is another thing whether theEuropean nation states have really needed Integration for rescue. In other words, how far the-8-

so-called "postwar settlement" or "Keynesian welfare state" had depended on Integration?
Aren't the Marshall Plan or the Breton Woods Regime more important for the "rescue"? This
is what I call here the "Milwardian perspective lost."
We have to remember that the domestic settlement within each nation-state and the reconstruction of the European international order were concurrent processes. It is not thatthey consolidated their domestic regimes first and then stepped in the European arena to negotiate the European order. Of course, we have many detailed accounts of interdependence
or interpenetration of domestic and international politics in the monograph, especially concerning the postwar reconstruction period. The question I am asking here from an actual concern is what has been the concrete relationship between the variety of postwar politico-economic regimes in Western European nation-states and the actual trajectory of Integration.
To highlight current difficulty of social policy co-ordination at the EU-level, Scharpf(2002) refers to the effort made by Guy Mollet, then French Prime Minister, during the Rome
Treaty negotiations and his failure to harmonise social policy. After that, the national welfare
states expanded and consolidated their own national "regimes", which makes current co-ordination difficult. Some German economists or law scholars highly appreciate the Rometreaty as an embodiment of Ordoliberalismus, which corresponded to the German domestic
politico-economic regime of the 1950s. According to a story of this line, the West German
government, especially its Economic Minister Ludwig Erhard, has successfully installed economic order with stress on market competition, almost unnoticed by other governments(Mestmäcker 1993). These are stories told with clear political intentions. Such narrative
should be revised, based on solid historical research.
But not all the burden should be borne by the Integration historians. At least, the sameamount of responsibility should be put on the shoulder of scholars of domestic history. In
spite of the growing amount of historical works dealing with the postwar era, most of them
are concentrated on the social and cultural aspects of the postwar order. Actual working of
the postwar political economy, its diachronic change, and its overall characterisation is not
elucidated. This is further exacerbated by the recent development in political science, moving
away from history and leaning toward politometrics and game theory. As a result, only a few
scholars have an interest in the investigation of the postwar regimes.
Recently, it is often lamented that real party competition was lost or it is the time of"post-democracy" (Crouch 2004). But such misgivings are too often based on cliches about
good old days and on no grounded knowledge. It is more than questionable that we had areal democratic choice, which we do not have now. Just remember the fact that the famous
article "waning of opposition" was published in 1957 (Kirchheimer 1957)!
We should know more about the postwar regimes, the world where we lived in. In this-9-

regard, it is interesting to note that Martin Conway, an Oxford Historian, is advancing the historical research of the postwar democratic regimes. Within the framework of the "Europeanisation History Network" mentioned above, his project is on "Discourses of Democracy inWesternEurope1947-73:

Cause

or

Symptomof(de)Europeanisation?"(http://www.europeanisation.org/for/conway.html). The focus on discourse is a promising way,
for we already have interesting works on the inter-war periods from discourse perspective in
the Integration Historiography, which deal with both the domestic and the European dimensions (Sick 2002; 2003; Wegeman 2003).
To summarise this section, what we need now is to analyse the co-evolution of the domestic and the international regimes in Europe simultaneously. It will shed new light on the
diagnosis of the current situation and the future prospects of the European Integration.

6. Conclusion
These are my wish list to the Integration historiography. It is summarised as follows;
1. more attention to the transnational actors and relations,
2. more policy histories and their alignment with the main-stream Integration history,and3. true "European" history dealing with the interdependence or the co-evolution of thedomestic and the international aspects.
It is disputable if political science has something to offer to the historical research, but
I'm sure that Integration historians are standing on a fertile ground and have much to offer.
I'm really expecting it.
Notes[1] In this regard, I have the same concern with Wolfram Kaiser, a German Integration historian working in Britain, although from the opposite direction. It is recommended to consult his
various review articles for more historically grounded arguments (Kaiser 2005; 2006; 2008).
[2] As examples of works employing the “space” metaphor, see Delanty and Rumford (2005)
and Misa and Schot (2005).

-10-References
Alter, Karen J. 2001. Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an International Rule of Law in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Amiya-Nakada, Ryosuke. 2004. Constructing 'Corporatist' State-Society Relations?: Current
Discourses on the European NGOs and Its Democratic Weakness. Kobe University
Law Reiview 38: 1-20.
----------. 2008, forthcoming. "Shakai Moderu" Gensetsu no Teichaku to Sono Seidoteki
Kiban: EU Reveru Senmonka Nettowaku no Kino. (=Establishment of the "Social Model" Discourse and its Institutional Foundation: A Function of EU-level Expert Network)
Bühlbäcker, Bernd. 2007. Europa im Aufbruch. Personal und Personalpolitik deutscher
Parteien und Verbände in der Montanunion 1949-1958. Essen: Klartext.
Conway, Maritn. 2002. Democracy in post-war Western Europe. The Triumph of a Political
Model. European History Quarterly 32(1): 59-84.
----------. 2004. The Rise and Fall of Western Europe's Democratic Age 1945-73. Contemporary European History 13(1): 67-88.
Crouch, Colin. 2004. Post-democracy. London: Polity Press.
Delanty, Gerard, and Chris Rumford. 2005. Rethinking Europe: Social Theory and the Implications of Europeanization. London: Routledge
Dølvik, Jon Erik. 1997. Redrawing Boundaries of Solidarity? ETUC, Social Dialogue and theEuropeanisation of Trade Unions in the 1990s. Fafo-report, 238.
Döring, Holger. 2007. The Composition of the College of Commissioners. European Union
Politics 8(2): 207-228.
Dülffer, Jost. 2005. Europäische Zeitgeschichte - Narrative und historiographische Perspektiven. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 1-2/2005: 18-26.
Endo, Ken, ed. 2008. Yo-roppa Togo-shi (=A History of European Integration). Nagoya:
Nagoya University Press.
Egeberg, Morten. 1999. Transcending Intergovernmentalism? Identity and Role Perceptionsof National Officials in EU Decision-making. Journal of European Public Policy 6(3):456-474.
Featherstone, Kevin and Claudio M. Radaelli, 2003. The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Geyer, Robert. 2000. Exploring European Social Policy. Oxford: Polity Press.
Glootz, Tanja Anette 2005. Alterssicherung im europäischen Wohlfahrtsstaat: Etappen ihrer
Entwicklung im 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt a. M. Campus.
Greenwood, Justin. 2007. Interest Representation in the EU, 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Haas, Ernst B. 2004 [1958]. The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces,-11-1950-1957. Re-issue with new introduction by the author. Notre Dame: University ofNotre Dame Press.
Hoffmann, Stefan-Ludwig. 2003. Democracy and Association in the Long Nineteenth Century: Toward a Transnational Perspective. Journal of Modern History 75(2): 269-299.
Holzinger, Katharina, Helge Jörgens and Christoph Knill, eds. 2007. Transfer, Diffusion und
Konvergenz von Politiken (PVS-Sonderheft 38). Wiesbadenä VS Verlag für Sozialwissehscaftten.
Joerges, Christian, 2004. What is Left of the European Economic Constitution?: A Melancholic Eulogy. EUI Working Paper, European University Institute, LAW 2004/13.
Joerges, Christian, and Florian Rodl, 2005. "Social Market Economy" as Europe's Social
Model? In: A European Social Citizenship? Preconditions for Future Policies from a
Historical Perspective, ed. Lars Magnusson and Bo Strath, 125-157. Bruxelles: Peter
Lang.
Johnson, Ailish. 2005. European Welfare States and Supranational Governance of Social
Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Kaelble, Hartmut. 2002. The Historical Rise of a European Public Sphere? Journal of
European Integration History 8(2): 9-22.
Kaelble, Hartmut. 2004. Transnationalität aus der Sicht eines Sozialhistorikers. In:
Geschichte der internationalen Beziehungen: Erneuerung und Erweiterung einer historischen Disziplin, ed. Eckart Conze, Ulrich Lappenküper and Guido Müller, 277-292.
Köln/ Weimar/ Wien: Böhlau.
Kaelble, Hartmut, Martin Kirsch and Alexander Schmidt-Gering, eds. 2002. TransnationaleÖffentlichkeiten und Identitäten im 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.
Kaiser, Wolfram. 2005. Transnational Western Europe since 1945: Integration as Political Society Formation. In: Kaiser and Starie (2005), 17-35.
----------. 2006. From State to Society?: The Historiography of European Integration. In:
European Union Studies, ed. Michelle Cini and Angela K. Bourne, 190-208. Basingstoke: Routledge.
----------. 2007. Christian Democracy and the Origins of European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
----------. 2008. History Meets Politics: Overcoming Interdisciplinary Volapük in Research on
the EU. Journal of European Public Policy 15(2): 300-313.
Kaiser, Wolfram, and Starie, Peter, eds. 2005. Transnational European Union: Towards a
Common Political Space. London: Routledge.
Kirchheimer, Otto. 1957. The Waning of Opposition in Parliamentary Regimes. Social. Research, 24(2): 127-156.
-12-

Klausen, Jytte, and Tilly, Louise A., eds. 1997. European Integration in Social and Historical
Perspective: 1850 to the Present. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Knill, Christoph, ed. 2005. Cross-national Policy Convergence: Concepts, Causes and Empirical Findings. Special Issue of Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5).
Loth, Wilfried. 1990. Der Weg nach Europa. Geschichte der europaischen Integration
1939-1957. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
----------. 1991. Soziale Bewegungen im Katholizismus des Kaiserreichs. Geschichte undGesellschaft 17(3): 279-310.
McCormick, John P. 2007. Weber, Habermas, and Transformation of the European State:
Constitutional, Social, and Supranational Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mestmäcker, Ernst-Joachim, 1993. Rom oder Maastricht. In: Idem., Recht in der offenen
Gesellschaft. Baden-Baden: Nomos
Milward, Alan S. 1994. The European Rescue of the Nation-State, Paperback edition. London: Routledge.
Misa, Thomas J., and Schot, Johan, 2005. Inventing Europe: Technology and the Hidden Integratoin of Europe. History and Technology 21(1): 1-19.
Mittag, Jürgen, ed. 2006. Politische Parteien und europäische Integration: Entwicklung und
Perspektiven transnaionaler Parteienkooperation in Europa. Essen: Klartext.
Pasture, Patrick. 2001. The Interwar Origins of International Labour's European Committment (1919-1934). Contemporary European History 10(2): 221-237.
----------. 2005. Trade Unions as a Transnational Movement in the European Space 1955-65:
Falling Short of Ambitions? In: Kaiser and Starie (2005), 109-130.
Puchala, Donald. 1972. Of Blind Men, Elephants and International Integration. Journal of
Common Market Studies 10(3): 267-284.
Rumpf, Jörg. 2001. Deutsche Industriegewerkschaften und Europäische Gemeinschaften:
Die Europapolitik der Industriegewerkschaft Metall und der Industriegewerkschaft
Chemie, Papier, Keramik im Zeitraum zwischen dem Inkrafttreten der Römischen Vertrage und den Ersten Direktwahlen zum Europäischen Parlament. Doctoral Dissertation, Ruhr-Universitat-Bochum.
Scharpf, Fritz W. 2002. The Euroepan Social Model: Coping with the Challenge of Diversity.
Journal of Common Market Studies 40(4): 645-670.
Schmitter, Philippe C. 1996. Imaging the Future of the Euro-polity with the Help of New Concepts. In: Governance in the European Union, ed. Gary ,Marks, Fritz W. Scharpf, Philippe C. Schmitter and Wolfgang Streeck, 121-165. London: Sage.
Sick, Klaus-Peter, 2002. A Europe of Pluralist Internationalism: The Development of the-13-French Theory of Interdependence from Emile Durkheim to the Circle around Notre
Temps (1890-1930). Journal of European Integration History 8(2): 45-68.
----------, 2003. A New Idea of Europe: The Liberal Internationalism of the Nouvelle Revue
Francaise(1919-1925).

European

Political

EconomyReview1(1):105-117.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/EPER/vol1/no1/sick.pdf
Suzuki, Hitoshi. 2007. How Trade Unions Built their first European Network under the ECSC:
Decartelisation Policy and Trade Unions’ Response from a German Perspective
1950-1955. Proceedings of HEIRS 3rd Annual Colloquium, 23-36.
Ther, Philip. 2003. Beyond the Nation: The Relational Basis of a Comparative History of Germany and Europe. Central Euroepan History 36(1): 45-73.
Trondal, Jarle, Martin Marcussen and Frode Veggeland. 2005. Re-discovering International
Executive Institutions. Comparative European Politics 3(2): 232-258.
Varsori, Antonio, ed. Inside the European Community: Actors and Policies in the European
Integration 1957-1972. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Verdier, Daniel, and Richard Breen, 2001. Europeanization and Globalization: Politics against
Markets in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies 34(3): 227-262.
Wegmann, Milene, 2002. Neoliberale Europa-Föderationskonzepte 1918-1945. Journal of
European Integration History 8(1): 11-35.
Wendler, Frank. 2005. Soziales Europa und demokratische Legitimität: Die Institutionalisierung der EU-Sozialpolitik aus demokratietheoretischer Perspektive. Baden-Baden:
Nomos.

-14-